How God wrote eCat in a mysterious way
Date: Tuesday, August 12, 2014 @ 22:54:59 EDT
Topic: Science


Ahead is a discussion between Andrea Rossi, Wlad, Mr. Joe, Mr. JR,  and Mr. Curiosone, in the Rossi's blog Journal of Nuclear Physics.

  • Curiosone

    Dr Andrea Rossi:
    When you have time ( repeat: when you have time, I want not to steal your time) can you answer to this question that nobody has been able to answer me, since I was in the high school: matter is made of waves or of particles?
    Thank you,
    W.G.




  • Andrea Rossi

    Curiosone:
    As you see, I have edited a little bit your question to make it correct.
    Matter is made by waves, which are quantum fields. Everything in the elementary particle world is made by waves and are the vibrations in the waves quantum fields that make the difference between one particle and another, or between a Fermion and a Boson. Therefore, if you look carefully among waves, you can see particles, which are particular vibrations in a particular field; here is an analogy: if you look at a photo in the screen of your computer , you see images ( waves in a quantum field); but if you look more precisely, you see in them pixels ( particles).
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Joe

    Dr Rossi,

    If you believe that a particle is a wave, and since a wave exists in a medium, does that mean that two different particles (electron, neutrino) would each have a different medium associated with them? Or would their respective waves be situated within only one shared fundamental medium (aether)?

    All the best,
    Joe

  • Andrea Rossi

    Joe:
    In the quantum field theory, elementary particles are tiny vibrating waves in a particular field and interactions are between elementary particles in fields; forces carried in their interactions by means of bosons can be thought of as resulting from vibrations in fields.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Joe

    Dr Rossi,

    How do you distinguish between the wave that composes a particle and the wave that is associated with the surrounding field of that particle? For example, an electron has an electric field which has a wave associated with it. If the electron itself is a wave, where is the point of transition between the wave of the electron and the wave of its electric field?

    All the best,
    Joe

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Andrea Rossi wrote in August 1st, 2014 at 7:24 PM

    Curiosone:
    As you see, I have edited a little bit your question to make it correct.
    Matter is made by waves
    =====================================

    COMMENT

    Waves cannot colide like billiard balls, as happens in Compton Effect.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_scattering

    Only corpuscular particles can collide like billiar balls.

    As from the foundations of Quantum Mechanics is impossible to eliminate the incompatibility between the theory and the experiments, Bohr proposed his famous Principle of Complementarity, according to which in some experiments the matter behaves like particles and in other experiments the matter behaves like waves.

    But in 2011 the physicist Aephraim Steinberg made an experiment showing that Bohr’s Principle of Complmentarity is wrong:
    http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3295

    According to Quantum Mechanics, a quantum particle can behave either as a particle or as a wave, but it cannot behave as wave and as a particle at the same time.

    The experiment made by Steinberg showed that Quantum Mechanics is wrong, because in his experiment a photon crossed a unique slit, and it had inferference with itself (a wave feature), while from Quantum Mechanics we would have to expect a particle feature only, since the photon crossed only one slit.

    regards
    wlad

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Andrea Rossi wrote in August 2nd, 2014 at 8:09 AM

    Joe:
    In the quantum field theory, elementary particles are tiny vibrating waves in a particular field and interactions are between elementary particles in fields; forces carried in their interactions by means of bosons can be thought of as resulting from vibrations in fields.
    =======================================

    COMMENT

    Quantum Field Theory is wrong, because according to the theory the even-even nuclei with Z=N (like 2He4, 6C12, etc.) cannot have null nuclear magnetic moment, because due to the rotation of the nucleus the charged protons would have to produce a positive magnetic moment.

    As said in 29th July:

    …for the moment, we are overlooking something fundamental at smaller scales.

    regards
    wlad

  • Andrea Rossi

    Wladimir Guglinski:
    Obviously I respect your opinion, but I do not agree upon the fact that quantum field theory is wrong.
    I also must add that I do not think that any theory should be considered eternally valid and I think that the phenomenological epochè is always a good exercise.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Joe:
    An electron is a tiny vibration in the particular quantum field it belongs to. The “transition” of a boson into a fermion like a lepton is made by the interaction between the quantum field in which the boson vibrates and the Higgs field; the Higgs field turns the boson into a fermion breaking the symmetry. Once the electron is born after the interaction between the boson’s field and the Higgs field, there is not a transition between the wave and the electron: the electron IS a wave, because it is, as said above, a tiny vibration in the quantum field it belongs to, a tiny vibration that we perceive as a particle of matter. I made the example of the image in the screen of the computer, that is an image, but if we observe it precisely our senses perceive it as a system of pixels, but it is still an image; image does not pass through any transition between image and pixel or vice versa. In this model image is the quantum field of the electron, the lepton ( electron) is the matter: the matter is just a vibration in the field as well as the pixel is just a dot of the image.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Andrea Rossi wrote in August 2nd, 2014 at 9:02 PM

    1)
    Wladimir Guglinski:
    Obviously I respect your opinion,
    ———————————–

    Dear Andrea,
    it is not a question of opinion.

    The scientific method prescribes that a theory must be able to be fit to the results of the experiments.
    If the theory is incompatible with the experiments, it cannot be correct.
    This is what the scientific method prescribes.

    It is not my opinion

    .

    2)
    but I do not agree upon the fact that quantum field theory is wrong.
    ———————————-

    COMMENT

    By considering Quantum Field theory even-even with Z=N have to have positive magnetic moment.
    But they have null magnetic moment.

    It is not a question to be agree, or not.

    By considering the scientific method, Quanum Field Theory is wrong, because the theory does not fit to the results of experiments.

    .

    3)
    I also must add that I do not think that any theory should be considered eternally valid and I think that the phenomenological epochè is always a good exercise.
    ————————————–

    COMMENT

    So, it is the time to realize that Quantum Field Theory is wrong.
    It can work well in a certain level.

    But in smaller scales Quantum Field Theory is fundamentally wrong.

    regards
    wlad

  • Joe

    Dr Rossi,

    An electron has an electric field. We can point to the electron, and we can also point to its effect far away (perhaps to a device measuring field strength). The electron is a local phenomenon, and its electric field is a remote phenomenon. Both phenomena exist at the same time. The local one is of a particle nature, and the remote one is of a wave nature. Therefore, there exists an obvious point of transition between these two different natures. But if we now consider the local phenomenon as wave, the point of transition between two similar (wave) natures becomes problematic. If there were no point of transition, the two phenomena could only be considered as actually one phenomenon (one wave), with no distinction between local particle and remote field.

    All the best,
    Joe

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Andrea Rossi wrote in August 2nd, 2014 at 9:02 PM

    Wladimir Guglinski:
    …but I do not agree upon the fact that quantum field theory is wrong.
    ——————————————

    COMMENT:

    Dear Andrea,

    Quantum Field Theory (QFT) was developed from the contribution of several theorists, and one among them is the Nobel Laureate Dr. Gerard t’ Hooft.

    From the concept of field considered in QFT it is impossible to explain why even-even nuclei with Z=N have zero magnetic moment (as all the nuclei have rotation, the rotation of the protons within those nuclei would have to induce a positive magnetic moment, and therefore QFT cannot explain why those nuclei have null magnetic moment).

    So, I would like to suggest you, dear Andrea, to invite the Dr. G. t’Hooft to come here to tell us how it is possible to explain why even-even nuclei with Z=N have zero magnetic moment, by considering the Quantum Field Theory.

    His email is the following: G.tHooft@phys.uu.nl

    And I challenge any theorist expert in Quantum Field Theory to come here, to tell us how it is possible to explain why even-even nuclei with Z=N have zero magnetic moment, from the foundations of QFT.

    Regards
    wlad

  • Andrea Rossi

    Wladimir Guglinski, Joe:
    Who wants to answer you is very welcome, as well as your comments are.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • JR

    Wladimir,

    Your last several posts are simply wrong in all significant respect. In most cases you don’t even appear to understand the concepts that are being discussed and so even your initial ‘statements of fact’ are simply nonsense:

    1) You don’t understand the concept of wave-particle duality: all particles behave as waves (in the quantum mechanical sense) all the time. In some energy limits this behavior is similar to a classical mechanics description of particle behavior. In some limits, it is more similar to a classical wave. But it is not correct to say that a particle is ever just a classical particle or a classical wave.

    2) You don’t understand diffraction and quantum mechanics. There is nothing that says a single photon or electron behaves like a particle when it passes through a single slit. A basic QM textbook can address your misunderstanding.

    3) You don’t understand Quantum Field Theory. QFT does not allow you to calculate magnetic moments of nuclei. It can be used to calculate interactions of fundamental (point-like) particles, but a model is required to build a bound state nucleus from a collection of composite (non-fundamental) particles such as protons and neutrons. Also, your argument about orbiting nucleons is a purely classical one, so both wrong and irrelevant.

    4) You (still) don’t understand magnetic moments. They are, by definition, zero for any spin-0 nucleus. So the only thing you can possibly learn from the magnetic moment of these spin-0 nuclei is that people who raise the question of predictions for them don’t have any idea what they’re talking about.

    5) While I’m here, the pion is the particle associated with the Yukawa potential, so it’s fair to say that Yukawa did predict the existence of the pion. However, he assumed it was a fundamental particle, and it turns out that it was a QCD bound state.

    6) You also appear to have basic trouble with numbers. A “zero” is different from a missing entry in a table – that one has given you a lot of trouble. Also, when two measured values are slightly different (proton radius of 0.84 and 0.88 fm), that does not mean that the correct answer is 0.25.

    7) Basic logic. Even if you find a case where someones model of a QCD or quantum mechanical phenomenon is incorrect, that does not overturn everything we know about QCD or quantum mechanics. It might mean that there’s a fundamental flaw, but you’d have to actually look at the details of the model to make such a conclusion.

    These are some of the issues with the claims you’ve been making more recently. There was a useful compilation of an extended list of errors in claims you’ve been making for a longer time, but I’d have to search for it. I can do so if anyone cares.

    I’d work on sorting out these more basic issues before reinventing all of known physics. My apologies if I’ve stated things unclearly or made any minor errors; this didn’t seem like a post that was worthy of a lot of time.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    JR wrote in August 3rd, 2014 at 9:33 AM

    Wladimir,

    Your last several posts are simply wrong in all significant respect. In most cases you don’t even appear to understand the concepts that are being discussed and so even your initial ‘statements of fact’ are simply nonsense:

    =========================================================

    COMMENT

    Dear JR,

    I challenged any theorist expert in Quantum Field Theory to come here to explain why even-even nuclei with Z=N have magnetic moment zero.

    But you are not expert even in elementary Physics, dear JR.

    Actually you dont know even geometry, since you dont know the difference between an ellipsoid and a sphere.
    So, I will not waste my time with your nonsenses.

    .

    To the readers of the JoNP

    Look at the Figure 1 of the paper How atomic nuclei cluster, published in Nature:

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v487/n7407/full/nature11246.html

    Are you able to realize that Figure 1 shows a structure with elipsoidal shape?

    But Mr. JR is not able to understand that Figure 1 shows an elipsoidal structure.

    In December 2013 Mr. JR claimed here in the JoNP that the structure of the Figure 1 is spherical:

    ————————————————
    JR
    December 15th, 2013 at 12:33 AM

    Wladimir,

    Actually, Martin Freer and I gave the same argument, you just didn’t understand it. And it’s not exactly an argument, it’s part of the definition of the quadrupole moment, which is taken as the measure of the deviation from spherical symmetry. That is why I was explaining that the nucleus is spherical, in the standard meaning of the phrase, even though it has structures as shown in Freer’s work.
    ————————————————–

    regards
    wlad

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    To the readers of the JoNP:

    Here is another example of my disagreement with Mr JR:

    ———————————————————
    3) You don’t understand Quantum Field Theory. QFT does not allow you to calculate magnetic moments of nuclei.
    ———————————————————

    COMMENT

    Mr. JR is not able to understand the fundamental question regarding the reason why Quantum Field Theory is not able to explain the null magnetic moment of even-even nuclei with Z=N.

    Indeed, QFT does not allow to calculate magnetic moment. Actually magnetic moments are calculated from the nuclear models existing in the Standard Nuclear Physics.

    But here is the reason why QFT is not able to exlain the null magnetic moment of those nuclei:

    1) The concept of field considered in the Standard Nuclear Physics is the same concept of field existing in the Quantum Field Theory, which is a mono-field concept.

    2) Without to consider the rotation of the nuclei, the even-even nuclei with Z=N would have null magnetic moment, by considering the Standard Nuclear Physics, because, due to the symmetry of the nucleus, each pair proton-neutron has a symmetrical pair proton-neutron, and the two pairs proton-neutron cancel each other their magnetic moments.

    3) But the nuclei have rotation. And the rotation of a charge induces magnetic moments. THIS IS A FUNDAMENTAL LAW OF PHYSICS. So the rotation of the protons within the nuclei induce magnetic moment. And therefore the even-even nuclei with Z=N have to have magnetic moment different of zero.

    3.1) And a theorist cannot, by definition, to define as zero a nuclear property which must be DIFFERENT of zero as consequence of a FUNDAMENTAL LAW OF PHYSICS, because such stupid method of definition proposed by Mr. JR violates a fundamental law of Physics.

    4) The problem with Quantum Field Theory is because it is a mono-field theory. And it is IMPOSSIBLE to explain the zero magnetic moment of even-even nuclei with Z=N, by considering ANY THEORY developed from the mono-field concept of field.

    5) The zero magnetic moment of the even-even nuclei with Z=N can be explained only by considering a NON-mono-field theory, as proposed in Quantum Ring Theory, where the field of elementary particles is formed by the overlap of two concentric fiedls Sn and Sp.

    6) Therefore, such question (why from the mono-field concept considered in Quantum Field Theory it is not possible to explain the zero magnetic moment of the even-even nuclei with Z=N ) is a fundamental question in Physics.

    regards
    wlad

  • Curiosone

    Andrea Rossi,
    When you have time: a neutron out of an atom decays into proton and an electron; this means that it contains them someway?
    Thank you for your patience
    W.G.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Curiosone:
    Fermions, as we have seen, are waves in particular quantum fields: matter particles are discrete vibrations in fermionic fields. When a neutron decays its quantum field resonates with the quantum field of electrons and the quantum field of protons, so that from such resonance one electron is born in its quantum field and a proton is born in its quantum field too. By the way, also an antineutrino is born in its quantum field to maintain the leptons conservation.
    Warm Regards
    A.R.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Curiosone wrote in August 5th, 2014 at 10:59 AM

    Andrea Rossi,
    When you have time: a neutron out of an atom decays into proton and an electron; this means that it contains them someway?
    Thank you for your patience
    W.G.
    ============================================

    COMMENT

    Dear Curisione,
    along decades the theorists used to suppose that it is impossible the neutron to be formed by proton+electron, because of several theoretical restrictions against the model n=p+e.
    For instance, the proton has spin 1/2, the electron has spin 1/2, and so the neutron formed by p+e would have to have spin 0 or 1.
    But experiments show that neutron has spin 1/2.
    There are many other theoretical restrictions agsinst the model n=p+e.

    Therefore the nuclear theorists believe that the proton and the electron do not exist into the neutron.
    And from the principles of Quantum Mechanics, it is impossible a neutron be formed by the fusion proton+electron at low energy.

    However two experiments, one made by Elio Conte and Maria Piealice, and the other made by Don Borghi, have demonstrated that a neutron can be formed by proton+electron at low energy (this is IMPOSSIBLE according to the current Nuclear Physics).

    So, the two experiments show that something very serious is wrong in the principles of the current Nuclear Physics).

    And, as Nuclear Physics is wrong, then the structure of neutron formed by proton+electron is possible, as the two experiments have proven.

    According to the Scientific Method, any controversy about a question must be solved via the performance of experiments.
    However, sometimes the scientific comunity does not apply the Scientific Method so that to solve scientific controversy. Instead of, they betray the Scientific Method, so that to save the theories in which they believe.

    That’s why the physicits reject the experiments made by Conte-Pieralice and Don Borghi, because if the two experiments be accepted by the Scientific Community there is need to reject as wrong even some principles of the most reputable theory of the present days, the Quantum Electrodynamics.

    The Conte-Pieralice experiment was published in 1999 by the Infinite Energy Magazine.

    The Don Borghi experment was in a paper titled Experimental Evidence of Emission of Neutrons from Cold Hydrogen Plasma, in the American Institute of Physics (Phys. At. Nucl.), vol 56, no 7, 1993.

    regards
    wlad

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    To the readers of the JoNP

    New experiment (again) proves to be wrong Einstein’s empty space:

    Anomalous Thrust Production from an RF Test Device Measured on a Low-Thrust Torsion Pendulum

    http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2014-4029

    According to the current Modern Physics, the experiment (tested in the NASA Johnson Space Center) violates the energy-mass conservation law.

    This new proof that space is not empty reinforces the experiment publshed in 2011 by Nature:
    Observation of the dynamical Casimir effect in a superconducting circuit
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7373/full/nature10561.html

    Surprisingly, again we dont see any newspaper in the world claiming that Einstein was wrong.

    The scientific community of physicists continues keeping the old desparate attempt so that do not recognize that Einstein was wrong.

    We have only to wait so that see how many years the scientific community will be well succeeded in such attempt.

    regards
    wlad

  • Curiosone

    Andrea Rossi:
    Thank you for your answers: your “analogies” are big help to understand the worls of elementary particles for us laymen. I also have to thank Wladimir Guglinski, but I am not able to understand what he says, I have not enough education.
    W.G.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Curiosone,
    There is not any thing enough difficult not to be possible to explain it in simple words, but also remind that simple explanations are superficial and sometimes the necessity to semplify makes explications misleading. Just be aware of this. About Wladimir Guglinski: take in account that he is bearer of a theory that is not coherent with the Quantum Field Theory, because he thinks that it is wrong. This is not the opinion of most of the Physicists, therefore you find incoherence between what he writes and what you find in what I write: I fully believe that the QFT is the best available model, even if we all know that theories are done to be eventually overcome .
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Andrea Rossi wrote in August 10th, 2014 at 8:50 AM

    Curiosone,
    : I fully believe that the QFT is the best available model, even if we all know that theories are done to be eventually overcome .
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    Curiosone wrote in August 10th, 2014 at 2:35 AM

    Andrea Rossi:
    Thank you for your answers: your “analogies” are big help to understand the worls of elementary particles for us laymen. I also have to thank Wladimir Guglinski, but I am not able to understand what he says, I have not enough education.
    W.G.
    ===========================================================

    COMMENT
    Dears Andrea Rossi and Curisione

    Quantum Field Theory is the best available model, but it works in a certain level.

    In a deep level it does not work, and therefore some principles of the theory must be wrong.

    For instance, according to the fundamental principles of QFT the neutron cannot be formed by proton+electron.
    However, the Conte-Pieralice experiment and the Borghi experiment prove that neutron is formed by proton+electron, and therefore something is wrong with the principles of QFT

    And since those two experiments prove that QFT cannot be the fundamental theory, what we had to expect from the theorists?

    Well, we had to expect that the community of physicists would have to undertake an effort, in order to repeat those two experiments.

    Unfortunatelly, instead of to undertake an effort so that to repeat the two experiments, the community of physicists actually adopts the strategy of running away of the two experiments as the devil runs away of the cross.

    Dr. Ruggero Maria Santilli tried to repeat the Don Borghi experiment in the laboratories of several universities in Europe, between 1993 and 2000. He was banned from all the European universities.

    In 2002 I had a discussion via email about the Taleyarkhan experiment with the Nobel Laureate Dr. G. t’Hooft.
    During the discussion I told him about the Don Borghi experiment, and he sent me the following reply:

    “There is much more wrong with n=p+e, but most of all the fact that the ‘experimental evidence’ is phony”.

    Well, a scientist cannot claim that any evidence of any experiment is phony, because he has not a laboratory into his brain, in order to repeat the experiment within his head, so that to verify the results of the experiment.

    The Scienfific Community prescribes that any controversy about any experiment must be solved via the repetition of the experiment. And not to claim that the experiment is phony, because its results are disagree to the foundations of the Quantum Field Theory.

    But it is easy to understand why Dr. t’Hooft said that Borghi experiment is phony. It is because Dr. t’Hooft is one among the theorists who developed the Quantum Field Theory, and he awarded the Nobel Prize thanks to his theoretical contributions.
    So, as Borghi experiment proves that something is wrong in the foundations of QFT, it is obvious that Dr. t’Hooft wishes to be the most far away he can from any experiment with the aim to repeat the Borghi experiment.

    In 2008 Santilli repeated the Don Borghi experiment and confirmed its results:
    Confirmation of Don Borghi’s experiment on the synthesis of neutrons from protons and electrons
    http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0608229

    Finally, I would like to ask to Andrea Rossi to answer:

    1- Are you agree with Dr. G. t’Hooft, and you also believe that Don Borghi experiment is phony?

    2- As Dr. t’Hooft, do you think that there is no need to repeat an experiment, in order to eliminate the controversy about its results?

    3- Do you think that the community of physicists is in the correct way, rejecting the Don Borghi experiment without to try to repeat it ? (so that to save QFT)

    4- In the case your opinion is that Don Borghi must be repeated in the laboratories of the universities worldwide, suppose the results be confirmed. Please tell us your opinion:

    As from the foundations of QFT a neutron cannot be formed by proton+electron at low energy , which is a premise denied by Don Borghi experiment, do you continue keeping your opinion that QFT is the best available model ?

    5- Concerning your words: “About Wladimir Guglinski: take in account that he is bearer of a theory that is not coherent with the Quantum Field Theory, because he thinks that it is wrong. This is not the opinion of most of the Physicists“, I would like to know your opinion:

    A) I think that Quantum Field Theory is wrong because, among other experiments, from its foundations the results of the Don Borghi experiment are impossible to occur.

    B) The opinion of the most of the Physicists is based on their rejection of the Don Borghi experiment.

    C) Therefore:
    Who, in your opinion, is following the Scientific Criterium?

    a) Wlad ? (having my opinion supported in the results of the Borghi experiment)

    or

    b) the most of the Physicists? (having their opinion suported by the rejection of the Borghi experiment).

    regards
    wlad

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Dear Mr. Curisione,

    as Andrea Rossi did not answer my questions, I can suppose that we may complete his sentence which he said to you, as follows:

    About Wladimir Guglinski: take in account that he is bearer of a theory that is not coherent with the Quantum Field Theory, because he thinks that it is wrong. This is not the opinion of most of the Physicists… because they do not follow the Scientific Criterium, since they reject some experiments which prove Quantum Field Theory be wrong. Therefore you find incoherence between what he writes and what you find in what I write, because the most of the Physicists betray the Scientific Method when Quantum Field Theory is disproved by some experiments.

    regards
    wlad

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Curiosone wrote in August 10th, 2014 at 2:35 AM

    Andrea Rossi:
    Thank you for your answers: your “analogies” are big help to understand the worls of elementary particles for us laymen. I also have to thank Wladimir Guglinski, but I am not able to understand what he says, I have not enough education.
    W.G.
    ======================================================================

    Dear Mr. Curiosone

    dont worry about your poor education in Physics.

    Because sometimes learning what is taught in univerisites is harmful to the development of science.

    According to the foundations of Quantum Mechanics (foundations from which Quantum Field Theory was developed), cold fusion is impossible.

    In 1998 during a lecture in Portland State University, the Nobel Laureate Murray Gell Mann said:
    “It’s a bunch of baloney. Cold fusion is theoretically impossible, and there are no experimental findings that indicate it exists.”
    http://www.angelfire.com/on/GEAR2000/kaplan2.html

    That’s why, along more than 20 years, the academic physicists rejected cold fusion, by using all kind of subterfuges, as pointing out errors in the calorimeters, and by claiming that theoretically cold fusion is impossible to occur.

    The reason for the cold fusion refusal was always the same: if cold fusion exists, then the foundations of Quantum Mechanics are wrong. And physicists like Gell Mann, who received their Nobel Prize thanks to their contribution for the development of Quantum Mechanics, could no admit their theories being threatened by cold fusion.

    So, along more than 20 years, experiments like of the pioneers Fleischmann and Pons (and many others) have been rejected by the academic physicists.

    When Andrea Rossi started his research, he did not have at that time a deep knowledge on the foundations Quantum Field Theory, and so he did not know that cold fusion is theoretically impossible.
    That’s why Andrea Rossi continued firmly believing that he would succeed to get a technology able to extract energy from cold fusion.

    And as happened to other cold fusion researchers, the work of Andrea Rossi also was under the attack of academic snakes, who tried to discredit his research along the years, claiming that his results are a fraud.

    It is interesting to note that, if Andrea Rossi had studied Physics in the universities, he would never discover his eCat, because by getting an academic background he would believe in the untouchable dogma that cold fusion is theoretically impossible, and therefore he would not start a research in cold fusion, since he would be convinced that theoretically cold fusion is impossible.

    But now Andrea Rossi started to study Quantum Field Theory, at least two hours per day. And now finally he fully believes that the QFT is the best available model.
    Happily, Andrea Rossi discovered it now, because if he had discovered it 20 years ago, today we would not have his eCat producing energy from cold fusion.

    And now, as Andrea Rossi knows that Quantum Field Theory is the best available theory, he adopts the same speach of the academic snakes who attacked his work along 20 years, claiming that his research is a pseudoscientific work impossible of being successful, because it is impossible according to the principles of Quantum Field Theory.

    Finally, dear Mr. Curiosone,
    it is curious to see how God writes in mysterious ways.

    regards
    wlad

  • Andrea Rossi

    Wladimir Guglinski:
    As always, we publish your theory and consequent considerations of yours, as we will continue to do, but I want to confirm that I strongly adhere to the quantum fields theory. It is not true that the snakes came from the academic world, the snakes came from well individuated sources. I owe to the Academic environment all I learnt about Physics and is at the base of my research.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Wladimir Guglinski
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    Andrea Rossi wrote in August 12th, 2014 at 6:40 AM

    Wladimir Guglinski:
    … but I want to confirm that I strongly adhere to the quantum fields theory.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    ======================================

    COMMENT

    Therefore:

    a) As from the principles of Quantum Field Theory the results of the Don Borghi experiment are impossible to occur…

    b) … it implies that you reject the Don Borghi experiment…

    c) … as are doing the most Physicists who betray the Scientific Method, trying to save the Quantum Field Theory

    Curiously,
    the synthesis of neutrons from protons and electrons at low energy (impossible to occur from the principles of Quantum Field Theory) is probably one among the mechanisms involved in cold fusion occurrence.
    And therefore,
    by rejecting the results of Don Borghi experiment is impossible to explain cold fusion.

    And also curiously, the frequency used by Don Borghi in his experiment is in the same order of the frequence used by you in your eCat.

    So,
    I confess that I am no able to understand the mysterious way on how God writes in order to give insight for scientists to advance the Physics.
    The way used by God is more mysterious than the way on how the own cold fusion occurs.

    I suppose one day in the future we will understand how cold fusion occurs.
    And I hope we will also understand how God writes the mysterious way so that to allow the advancement of science.

    regards
    wlad







This article comes from ZPEnergy.com
http://www.zpenergy.com

The URL for this story is:
http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3566